In recent days, as many as two dozen Republicans had raised concerns with that would ban abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped, but she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement....
The dispute erupted into the open in recent days and once again demonstrated the changing contours of the expanded House Republican caucus. The 246-member caucus is seeing rifts on issues where it once had more unity. That's because there are now more moderate Republicans from swing districts who could face tough reelections in 2016 when more Democratic and independent voters are expected to vote in the presidential election.
January 22, 2015
House Republican leaders "abruptly dropped" the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" because of "a revolt by female GOP lawmakers"...
... who thought the abortion restriction "would once again spoil the party's chances of broadening its appeal to women and younger voters," the Washington Post reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 249 of 249Lack of rhythm and balls wrote:
"Interesting. The not-right-wing would say it's the callousness with which the actual living are treated by conservative policy that debases life. The callousness with which they launch their wars that debase life."
You are such a tard. So ok then, it's conservatives that launch the wars that debase life. Do liberals or democrats in power not start wars, or do their wars not debase life?
Are their wars shiny happy wars where everyone teaches the world to sing?
Damn. 01 dumbheads win again.
It's better that they're here, Bob. Think of the damage they could do out on the street.
That's a good point, OM. But it requires that we stay online. I'm getting tired.
I'll take first watch.
Bruce Hayden wrote:
"But, pro-life absolutists also go against the majority here. The problem, in my mind, is that then the GOP is advocating limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, as they seem to be here, the liberal MSM can, and does, recasts this as an attack on the right of women to 1st trimester abortions. And, that isn't a debate that we need to be having at the federal level right now."
But this points to the disingenuousness of the MSM and not of conservatives. 20 weeks into the pregnancy is not the 1st trimester. And isn't too far off from viability which is around 24-28 weeks.
Further the idea of viabilty is problematic as a basis on which to judge when it's legal to have an abortion since science is getting better all the time and we can keep babies alive at earlier and earlier ages. If its established that babies feel pain prior to viability then that would trump viability as a metric to allow abortion.
Not sure of too many people who are ok with terminating pregnancies if they think the baby is actuallly in pain when he/she is being aborted
Gotcha at 0700 EST, OM.
I think Ritmo may have escaped.
Cynicus wrote:
How many abortions take place after 20 weeks? And how many are performed based on the discovery of serious birth defects? I thought the whole reason Gosnell had so much business was because no one would do abortions after a certain date except him. My point is: how big is the problem and does this bill solve the problem.
By the same token then why would liberals oppose moving the restriction to 20 weeks? It was clinton who said abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
If very few abortions are actually being done after 20 weeks why would people who want abortions to be rarer have a problem if we made abortion illegal after 20 weeks as opposed to 28 weeks.
In the end you watch this entire discussion and there is only one clear result: I don't want either jr565 or R&B at all involved in whether or not my wife can do anything.
There is risk getting an abortion. There is risk not getting an abortion. Some of the drugs and the hormonal changes caused by pregnancy and termination have shown correlation with increased cancer rates. Women have died due to complications due to pregnancy.
If there is anything that the government shouldn't be involved in this is it.
I don't understand, jr. If abortion is illegal after 28 weeks why is there a to-do over "late term" abortions? I thought Gosnell was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania law.
Original Mike wrote:
don't understand, jr. If abortion is illegal after 28 weeks why is there a to-do over "late term" abortions? I thought Gosnell was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania law.
Because the argument is that fetuses can feel pain prior to 28 weeks.
Achilles wrote:
There is risk getting an abortion. There is risk not getting an abortion. Some of the drugs and the hormonal changes caused by pregnancy and termination have shown correlation with increased cancer rates. Women have died due to complications due to pregnancy.
If there is anything that the government shouldn't be involved in this is it.
And I'd disagree. Govt is supposed to protect the rights and liberties of people. If it's established that abortion is murder then peoples rights are being fundamentally violated.
"If very few abortions are actually being done after 20 weeks why would people who want abortions to be rarer have a problem if we made abortion illegal after 20 weeks as opposed to 28 weeks."
I read this as a claim by you that abortion is currently illegal after 28 weeks, but maybe I misunderstood you.
Roe V Wade already establishes that protecting a fetus is a compelling state interest. They simply say that its ok to abort it prior to viability. But if we agree with the premise that there is a compelling state interest then the state would need to protect developing lives since they can't actually do so themselves.
Original Mike:
Generally its illegal after 28 weeks or when baby is viable (except in cases when the mothers life is in jeopardy)
But thee are different laws from state to state:
https://www.lozierinstitute.org/momentum-for-late-term-abortion-limits/
Many already do limit abortions to 20 weeks.
So, late-term abortions are already illegal in most states. I'm even more convinced this is bill is the wrong fight at the wrong time.
Original Mike wrote:
So, late-term abortions are already illegal in most states. I'm even more convinced this is bill is the wrong fight at the wrong time.
Well the supreme court makes a distinction between viable fetus and non viable and that has been reflected in different laws across different states.
But if that is the standard, don't see why repubs should capitulate to dems when generally want no restrictions on abortions.
Or in the case of Obama who is ok with babies being born alive and then killed.
"But if that is the standard, don't see why repubs should capitulate to dems when generally want no restrictions on abortions."
They're not "capitulating to the dems" by leaving the current restrictions in place.
Original Mike wrote:
They're not "capitulating to the dems" by leaving the current restrictions in place.
Sure they are.
Anything that distracts from the serious work of righting our economic and budgetary ship is foolish. Abortion would be a monster distraction. It is imperative that the dems are ousted from the White House in 2016. Then you can tilt at your abortion windmills.
Or in the case of Obama who is ok with babies being born alive and then killed.
The "I'm so happy-with-my-abortion-I-could-film-it fringe" belongs to the Left. It will always belong to the Left. But it's a leftist fringe.
As recently as the 1980's, there were good hard leftists who weren't so dogmatically all pro-abortion. Some of them even lived in Madison, Wisconsin but played on the national stage. Men like Erwin Knoll. Others, as mentioned at the link, were women.
29 DEATHS FROM TAKING THE MORNING AFTER PILL!!!!
The death rate from pregnancy and delivery is around 1 per 6100 pregnant women, according to the CDC (650/year divided into 3,952,841 live births)
Also according to the CDC, 5.8 million women have used emergency contraception. Even if none of them every used it more than once, 29 deaths divided into 5.8 million uses is a death rate of 1 per 200,000.
So pregnancy is approximately 32 times as deadly to women as the morning after pill.
Also according to the CDC, 5.8 million women have used emergency contraception. Even if none of them every used it more than once, 29 deaths divided into 5.8 million uses is a death rate of 1 per 200,000.
Are "emergency contraception" numbers bigger than the "Morning After Pill" numbers? If not, then why use two terms for the same thing? Your message's integrity depends on the answer to that question.
Are "emergency contraception" numbers bigger than the "Morning After Pill" numbers?
I was using this report, which says "this
report focuses only on emergency contraceptive pills" (a.k.a. "the morning-after pill").
(I'm the previous 'anon' poster, btw)
"Sentient" is another problematic word. Hitchens was fond of it. But really it means having feelings.
No it doesn't. Dictionary.com:
—adjective
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
characterized by sensation and consciousness.
—noun
a person or thing that is sentient.
Archaic. the conscious mind.
Thus, sentience has to do with possessing consciousness and/or having the capability of perceiving sensation. It has little or nothing to do with “having feelings” per se (which in ordinary usage means experiencing emotion(s) rather than sensory perception or consciousness). When will folks grasp that the historic derivation (etymology) of a word doesn't constrain its meaning in modern English. E.g., saying someone is “hysterical” does not mean you think he's “suffering in the womb" despite the word's etymology.
Someone was asking just many late-term abortions are there anyway? I believe our estimable hostess a while back estimated there were several thousand such every year.
Hitchens was fond of the word "sentient" because he liked playing the smart guy. It's one of those big words that isn't terribly necessary or useful. If you're trying to say or write something people can understand, why not use the words that are available and common? We've got lots of them in English.
E.g., saying someone is “hysterical” does not mean you think he's “suffering in the womb" despite the word's etymology.
And yet, it still does. It just means more now. I think you're painting yourself into a trap, but please keep it up.
And yet, it still does. It just means more now. I think you're painting yourself into a trap, but please keep it up.
You're seriously arguing that all words' original meanings are automatically included in later usages/meanings of derived words? Really?
Let's look at the particular word I was using as an example, and we'll see who's in a trap.
hysterical
—adjective
1. of, relating to, or characterized by hysteria.
2. uncontrollably emotional.
3. irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
4. causing hysteria.
5. suffering from or subject to hysteria.
6. causing unrestrained laughter; very funny: Oh, that joke is hysterical!
hysteria
—noun
1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
2. Psychoanalysis. a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.
3. Psychiatry. conversion disorder.
Compare mass hysteria.
mass hysteria
—noun
Psychology.
1. a condition affecting a group of persons, characterized by excitement or anxiety, irrational behavior or beliefs, or inexplicable symptoms of illness.
Also called epidemic hysteria.
conversion disorder
—noun
Psychiatry.
1. a mental disorder in which physical symptoms, as paralysis or blindness, occur without apparent physical cause and instead appear to result from psychological conflict or need.
Also called conversion hysteria.
(End quote)
While I would not doubt that some obsolete meaning in the OED may include something along the original meaning's lines (my physical OED isn't handy at the moment and I don't have a subscription, but I wouldn't doubt it), however that's absolutely not what it means these days, where all the definitions do not even mention womb or uterus, much less imply that the word (any of these words) mean that a hysterical person is “suffering in their womb.”
As far as the word sentient is concerned, I listed and discussed its (modern) meanings earlier. None of this backs up what you are apparently alleging.
Back to you for you to clinch the trap if you can.
Michael McNeil wrote While I would not doubt that some obsolete meaning in the OED may include something along the original meaning's lines (my physical OED isn't handy at the moment and I don't have a subscription, but I wouldn't doubt it), however that's absolutely not what it means these days, where all the definitions do not even mention womb or uterus, much less imply that the word (any of these words) mean that a hysterical person is “suffering in their womb.”
So you do agree with me! The word still carries the original meaning, but has broadened!
Much like the word "matrimony" has broadened.
damikesk says:
"I'm sick of Republicans treating conservatives as if they were morons that have to be lied to about everything."
Republicans keep lying to conservatives because lying to conservatives works so well for Republicans.
...here's how it works:
1.) GOP throws red meat to conservatives.
2.) Conservatives vote Republican.
3.) GOP takes office, sells conservatives down the river for a nickle apiece.
It's a simple plan, designed to get the votes of simple folk, with very short memories. The plan has been working for the Republicans for the past 100 years, and there is virtually no chance they will revise such a successful long-term strategy any time soon.
This gets tiresome.
bbkingfish said...Republicans keep lying to conservatives because lying to conservatives works so well for Republicans...GOP takes office, sells conservatives down the river for a nickle apiece.
So the GOP is a political party. Who knew?
GOP members are not always 100% honest. Who knew?
Grow up.
"...there is virtually no chance they will revise such a successful long-term strategy any time soon."
This is not a person we're talking about here. It's a group of persons, bound together by a group of idiologies. It's not a mouse that you can trap in a maze.
Dear Bob...
It was not I who was upset at Republican lying. I am not at all upset by it. I was responding to a conservative who was upset about Republican lying, and who expressed confusion on the issue.
I forgive your inability to follow a conversation.
Dear bbkingfish,
I accept your apology, even though your letter-writing style is crappy.
You still don't get what's going on, apparently.
A particular foible of partisans is that those on one side (right v. left) don't understand what's going on on the other (left v. right).
In particular, those who don't understand but choose to write about the other side's problems, as those see them, tend to inflate such problems.
"It's war between Warren and Hillary!"
"It's war between Jeb and Cruz!"
Get over it.
--Bob
But this points to the disingenuousness of the MSM and not of conservatives. 20 weeks into the pregnancy is not the 1st trimester
So conservatives don't want to ban first-trimester abortion? The 20-week ban isn't a strategic move in a campaign to achieve a total ban, much like Democrats' "assault weapon" bans were a strategic move towards a full ban on private firearms?
Who is really being disingenuous, here?
"Try taking to court a case when you can't even prove that a potential victim even existed"
Thirty-five states currently recognize the "unborn child" as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.
jr565 said...
"And I'd disagree. Govt is supposed to protect the rights and liberties of people. If it's established that abortion is murder then peoples rights are being fundamentally violated."
Whose rights? How long are we going to argue about viability? When does a fetus become a person?
Obviously the best way to answer this question is to have a majority vote and let a bunch of lawyers decide! After we dump money into election cycles for years and have protest marches everywhere of course. Because each one of us doesn't owe ~$66,000 in federal debt and the world isn't melting down around us.
Because no matter how the decision is made the true goal is to divide the electorate and keep us mad at each other while the progressive elite takes away more freedom. Pro-life efforts are just a cog in the progressive machine.
chillblaine said...
"Try taking to court a case when you can't even prove that a potential victim even existed"
"Thirty-five states currently recognize the "unborn child" as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development."
KEY WORD: STATES
God you people are dumb. The federal government has no place in this at all. You are just dividing the coalition that could give this country a chance at smaller government and actual freedom. Not to mention you look like creepy uncles to a large block of the electorate trying to dive into the most intimate of decisions.
Get people to church. Change their lives the right way. Stop trying to use the government to push this. It is the wrong tool.
With all due respect Achilles, I was only responding to a single comment. I happen to be very sympathetic to states' rights in many cases including this one.
God you people are dumb. I am right and you are wrong. Even if you're right, you're wrong, and I'm right, even if I'm left. Get it right or continue to be dumb.
Bob:
You need to develop your ability to focus. Your word salads are impenetrable, and greater coherence is a must if you hope to invest your writing with the appearance of actual thought. I promise now to resume ignoring you, until I notice some improvement on your part in this area.
Regards,
bb
Thirty-five states currently recognize the "unborn child" as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.
You're missing the point. States passed those laws so that, when a pregnant woman is murdered, they could double-dip and charge the murderer with a second murder. Also, so women who lost a baby to an assault could file "murder" charges against the attacker.
How are you going to detect this crime when the only people who knew that the "victim" even existed are the murderer and his or her accomplices? What sort of draconian surveillance state are you proposing?
What if there were a pregnant disabled lesbian of color - someone very high on the progressive stack - and in a confrontation with a police officer, loses the baby. Maybe the woman was selling loosies or something. That might be a matter for the Justice Department to decide whether the fetus' civil rights were violated.
Achilles wrote:Obviously the best way to answer this question is to have a majority vote and let a bunch of lawyers decide! After we dump money into election cycles for years and have protest marches everywhere of course. Because each one of us doesn't owe ~$66,000 in federal debt and the world isn't melting down around us.
Because no matter how the decision is made the true goal is to divide the electorate and keep us mad at each other while the progressive elite takes away more freedom. Pro-life efforts are just a cog in the progressive machine.
I'm in total agreement with you that the states SHOULD be deciding this. But the supremes took it upon themselves to make it a federal case. And so we have to work through the existing framework not one where states get to choose.
Achilles wrote;
KEY WORD: STATES
States govt is still govt.
jr565 said...
"I'm in total agreement with you that the states SHOULD be deciding this. But the supremes took it upon themselves to make it a federal case. And so we have to work through the existing framework not one where states get to choose."
So stop electing people to congress who try to pass stupid laws banning abortion at the federal level. Start electing people who are interested in making the federal government smaller and stop paying for abortions. Stop electing "conservatives." Stop electing people who think the federal government is a good solution to these issues. i.e. start electing libertarians instead of RINO statists.
Post a Comment